Also, weather or not David ate the lions or the bears, he still used the damn sling for survival as lions and bears would have done a great deal of damage to his flock and or personal health and put his livelyhood into jepardy.

IE, he used the tool on a daily basis and developed great proficiency with it.

So where is it exactly you think we are splitting hairs? Or do you just need to interject an opinion to feel superior on the internets?

You are completely wrong because of David wore an off the shoulder goatskin smock and Goliath had leather sandals and a chrome codpiece.

The Two assumptions here are
1. No contemporary accounts currently exist.
2. With out them its hard for either side to "prove" it did or didn't happen.
Neither of these are a set up a strawman, as they are based on my argument and not me trying to define someone else position.

Really? What exactly do we accept as historical fact with out contemporary accounts or physical evidence to back it up?

Nice both an appeal to authority and a no true Scotsman at the same time.

Nope. Just so you know, an appeal to authority is NOT always a logical fallacy. In this case it is not. Also, His comment isn't a "no true Scotsman " fallacy either..

You may want to consider your defintion of "contemporary" for an age when the Interwebs & the printing press didn't exist.

Letters where still written, journals where still kept, records where still kept. The fact is despite the fact this stuff happened a really long time ago these things are still found. It is one of the reasons we have a fairly good understanding of Rome. The followers of Christ being Jews where also most likely literate.

Originally Posted by Bodhi108

Do you have any other records for anyone's crucifixion during those years in Jerusalem? Logically then, we must assume that no one was crucified in Jerusalem at the order of Pontius Pilate.

Now this is a strawman, my argument has never been it didn't happen just the lack of an account of it happening different.
2nd. We do have contemporary accounts of crucifixion being used by roman prefixs as a form of punishment. Proof can be pointed to. We can infer that Pontius Pilate may have used this tactic. That being said I would still like to see at least one journal entry or letter showing that Pilate resorted to this tacit himself.

Originally Posted by Bodhi108

There's skepticism & then there's pseudo-skepticism.

Which one do you want to think you are?

Healthy skepticism till someone shows me a compelling argument.
You have to understand I have no deep rooted personal or emotional attachment to this.
Historical figure or not doesn't have any sort of bearing on my beliefs overall.
I just have yet to be presented with anything that I find compelling enough to Oh yes I see it now.

Originally Posted by Bodhi108

Socrates' existence is generally not questioned, even if accounts have been embellished or used to prove a given point.

Plato is a contemporary resource

Originally Posted by Bodhi108

Diogenes Laėrtius

He actually wrote something. He is his own contemporary account.

Originally Posted by Bodhi108

Pythagoras

May very well be a myth

Originally Posted by Bodhi108

Nope, I'm just ridiculing you for making a big deal questioning the existence of a person who scholars in the field of history really don't feel the need to question. This combined with your citation of Bill Maher makes me think you're a fucking idiot.

I actually didn't Cite Bill Maher once. I used him as a joke against an equally stupid source.

Originally Posted by It is Fake

Nope. Just so you know, an appeal to authority is NOT always a logical fallacy. In this case it is not. Also, His comment isn't a "no true Scotsman " fallacy either..

It is a fallacy its saying you should believe me because these people do. More productive would have been to tell me why Historians believe it, or send me in a direction to find it.
As I have yet to find it myself
There argument as I have seen comes down to well he was mentioned by these two secular Roman historians and they where right about a lot of other things.
I don't find this overly compelling since both historians postdate the writings of Mark.
Also it is a true scouts man because of the inclusion of "serious" thus making it impossible for me to site a historian that agrees with my point as they are then not "serious"

It is a fallacy its saying you should believe me because these people do.

No, that isn't what it says at all. It says that YOU do not know how to build an argument correctly to get your point across. No, a serious Historian wouldn't argue your POSITION seriously. Now, if you don't understand what that means or you are confused ASK.

More productive would have been to tell me why Historians believe it, or send me in a direction to find it.

More productive would have been you asking a question instead of thinking it was a fallacious statement.

Here after poking around the internet I came across rational wiki which echos a lot of the same stuff I have said. Please pick it apart and call out the fallacies, I am interested in hearing the other side and getting to the "truth".

Nope, You need to state your position clearly. Two people have said you are arguing he doesn't exist. I'm now looking back at your posts and seeing why they said this in the first place.

Here's an easy example:
A serious historian is not going to argue Ann Frank's Diary existence proves all war crimes, stories of survival and horrors, during World War II, must have a detailed written record.

Letters where still written, journals where still kept, records where still kept. The fact is despite the fact this stuff happened a really long time ago these things are still found. It is one of the reasons we have a fairly good understanding of Rome. The followers of Christ being Jews where also most likely literate.

A serious historian is not going to build their argument based on a logical fallacy.